I know in Tudor times they had courts but they seemed to just do what the monarch wanted. So when was it that English monarchs couldn't just have people beheaded?
Looking at it from the other way, the last time a King could arbitarily execute someone without a judgement by his peers was prior to Magna Carta in 1215
Technically the mechanism whereby the monarch executed those disloyal to him and seized their land still exists. It is known as an Act (or Bill) of Attainder.
Technically it needs legislative support from Parliament to proceed but practically this was always forthcoming up to James II and 1688.
Parliament could still use an act of attainder to prosecute someone today although it would fall foul of the ECHR which we signed in 1951 but was not legally applicable to English law until 2000.
So I'd say tha last time a monarch had a mechanism for simply executing someone (with the support of Parliament) was 2000.
Looking at it from the other way, the last time a King could arbitarily execute someone without a judgement by his peers was prior to Magna Carta in 1215
Don't you just love our unwritten constitution
Awesome info. Theoretically does this, or did it at one time, also apply to citizens of the various Commonwealth countries then formally under the Crown?
As an Australian I reluctantly acknowledge the distinction.
That being said perhaps its an indication how unimportant a de jure democracy is considering we would be amongst the happiest people on earth (although judging by our current political climate you wouldn't think so).
I could be wrong here, but I think the last monarch to order an execution, or rather got the judge to do the sentencing, was James II of England/VI of Scotland. James Scott, the Duke of Monmouth, an illegitimate son of the late King Charles II, was executed along with some of his supporters in his failed rebellion against James in 1685. James used the rebellion as a pretext to repeal the Test Act and Habeas Corpus. Parliament would oppose this initiatives, which resulted in James dismissing them in the same year.
When we've got to the stage where the King is forced to sign the death warrant for his own close friend and ally, I think we can say that the Crown had effectively lost the ability to have people killed; and while there are later examples of Attainder, it's worth noting that they were intiated by Parliament, rather than the Monarch, even in those cases where the Crown clearly approved of the decision.
So I'd say tha last time a monarch had a mechanism for simply executing someone (with the support of Parliament) was 2000.
Except of course that execution under any and all circumstances was abolished in 1998, of course...
Yep.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=262134
Pedantically speaking, the U.K., Canada and Australia are not democracies, as they don't have elected popular control over their governments and militaries.
They are democracies de facto not de jure.
On paper at least , that 86-year-old grandmother with the bad teeth still has the power to have a random citizen dragged out of their house and drawn and quartered. All she has to do is get the prime minister to counter-sign the paper.